8/14/2019 00607-20040202 SonyLetter

1/6

Electronic Frontier Fo.ndatlon'0.1' ,..:C C CCc

February 2, 2004Via Fax (212) 805-7906Hon. Denny ChinDaniel Patrick Moynihan United StatesCourthouse500 PearlStreet,Room 1020New York, New York 10007-1312Re: 1:04-cv-00473-DC, ony Music Entertainment,nc. et al v. Does 1-40

Dear JudgeChinPursuant o our telephonediscussionswith chambers,Amici Public Citizen, ElectronicFrontier Foundationand he AmericanCivil Liberties Union submit his letter concerningPlaintiffs' exparte application o servediscoveryseeking he dentity of the unnameddefendants. his is an action for copyright nfringement n which multiple music companies eekinjunctive relief, damages nd eesand costsagainst40 anonymous nd completelyunrelatedindividuals. Amici present his letter to argue hat, notwithstanding he seriousviolations of lawalleged n the complaint,plaintiffs havenot madea sufficient factual showing o warrant

discovery nto the identitiesof personswho have communicated nonymouslyover the Internet,including a showing hat there s personalurisdiction of eachof the 40 defendants nd hat theyare properly oined together n one action. Finally, we argue hat, n the event somediscovery sto be allowed, certain additional conditionsshouldbe imposed.Exhibit A to the Complaint specifies he InternetProtocol ("IP") addresshat eachDoeallegedlyused or posting songson particular dates ranging rom June hrough December2003),identifying between ive and en songs or eachdefendant.Plaintiffs seek o impose iability oneachof the 40 individuals ndividually - there are no allegationsof joint or several iability, and

no claims for relief in the alternativeagainstany of them. There s also no claim that theinfringers actedpursuant o any commonplan or conspiracy,or that their liability arisesout of acommon ransactionor occurrence.At most, t is alleged hat therehavebeena seriesofinstancesn which each ndividual defendant asused he facilities of a single Internet ServiceProvider "ISP"), Cablevision, o display heir respective ata iles on the Internet.

1. Balancing the Right to Anonymous SpeechAgainst the Need or Disclosure.Plaintiffs are correct hat it is commonplaceor plaintiffs to be allowed discoveryat the outsetofa lawsuit to identify otherwiseunknownpersonsalleged o have committeda legal wrong. Butthere s a significant differencebetween his caseand he variouscases laintiffs cite on page5of their brief, whereprisonersor arrestees ought o identify the prison or police officers whoallegedlybeat or otherwisemistreated hem. The defendants ere are accused f having engagedin wrongful but anonymous peech n the Internet,andbecausehe First Amendmentprotectsthe right to speakanonymously, subpoenaor their namesand addressess subject o aqualified privilege. The distribution, display or perfonnanceof musical and other creativeworksis, of course,speech rotectedby the First Amendment,and he SupremeCourt's ulings onanonymous peech ommonlycite literary pseudonyms s an exampleof our strong radition ofanonymous peech.Although plaintiffs will argue hat there s no First Amendment ight toinfringe a copyright, at this stageof the caseno such nfringementhasbeenestablish~ it is onlyalleged.Just as n other caseswherediscoveryseeks nformation hat may be privileg~ theCourt must consider he privilege before authorizingdiscovery.

The tensionbetween his importantqualified privilege and he nterestof a plaintiff whohas allegedwrongdoing n obtaining nfonnation needed o pursue itigation over alleged0 Info@eff.org

Street .San Frandsco, CA 94110 USA ..+14154369333 0+14154369993 Owww.eff.org

8/14/2019 00607-20040202 SonyLetter

2/6

Hon. Denny ChinPage2wrongdoing,hasbeenconsidered y a numberof federaland statecourtsover the past severalyears.Thesecourtshave wrestledwith the fact that, at the outsetof the itigation, the plaintiff hasdoneno more than allegewrongdoing,and a privilege is generallynot considered o beovercomeby mere allegations.They have urther recognized hat a seriouschilling effect onanonymous peechwould result f Internetspeakers new they could be identified by personswho merely allege wrongdoing,without necessarily aving any ntention of carrying hroughwith actua1litigation. ndeed,plaintiffs' representatives ave epeatedly old the press hat theydo not necessarilywant to pursue itigation againstall anonymous ile sharerswhose dentitiesthey obtain.

In order o balance hese nterests, he courtshave drawn by analogy rom the balancingtest hat many courts, ncluding the SecondCircuit, haveadopted n decidingwhether o compelthe disclosureof anonymous ources r donors.Carey v. Bume, 492 F 2d 631 (D.C. Cir. 1974);Cervantes . Time,464 F.2d 986 (8thCir. 1972);Baker v. F&F Investment, 70 F.2d 778,783(2d Cir.1972). Accordingly, the courts hat haveconsideredhis questionhave adopteda several-part balancing est o decidewhether o compel he dentification of an anonymous nternetspeaker o that he may be servedwith process.This test was most fully articulated n Dendrite v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J.App. 2001),which remains he only appellateopinion in the country o face he questionsquarely.Dendriterequires he would-be plaintiff to (I) use he Internet o notify the accused f the pendencyof theidentification proceedingand o explain how to presenta defense; 2) quote verbatim hestatements llegedly actionable; 3) allegeall elements f the causeof action; (4) presentevidencesupporting he claim of violation, and (5) show he court that, on balanceand n theparticularsof the case, he right to identify the speaker utweighs he First Amendment ight of

anonymity.Severalother courtshave similarly set orth requirements f notice, review of thecomplaint,and presentation f argumentand evidencebefore an ISP will be compelled oidentify an Internetspeaker. or example, n Melvin v. Doe, 49 Pa.D.&C.4th449 (2000), appeal

quashed,789 A.2d 696, 2001 Pa.Super. 30 (200 ), appeal einstated,836 A.2d 42 (pa. 2003),the trial court allowed an anonymous efendant o presentevidenceand seeksummary udgment,orderingdisclosureonly after finding genuine ssuesof material act requiring trial. In reversingthe denial of the defendant's nterlocutory appeal, he PennsylvaniaSupremeCourt discussed tlength he conflict between he right to speakanonymouslyand he plaintiff's right to identify apotential defendant, nd remanded or consideration f whetherevidenceof actualdamagehadto be presented efore he right of anonymous peech ould be disregarded. 36 A.2d at 47-50...Similarly, in La SocieteMetro Cash& Carry France v. Time WarnerCable 2003 WL22962857 Conn. Super.), he court applieda balancing est and considered vidence hatallegedly defamatorystatementswere alse and causednjury before deciding o allow discoveryconcerning he dentity of the speaker. n Columbia ns. Co. v. Seescandy.com,85 FRD 573(N.D.Cal. 1999), he court required he plaintiff to makea good aith effort to communicatewiththe anonymous efendants ndprovide them with notice hat the suit had been iled againstthem, hus assuring hem an opportunity o defend heir anonymity, and also compelled heplaintiff to demonstratehat it had viable claims againstsuchdefendants.d. at 579. And in ReSubpoenao America Online, 52 VaCir 26, 34 (Fairfax 2000), rev'd on other grounds, 542 SE2d377 (Va 2001), he court required ntroductionof the allegedlyactionable nternetposting, andrequired hat it be "satisfied by the pleadingsor evidence upplied" hat the subpoenaing arty

8/14/2019 00607-20040202 SonyLetter

3/6

Hon. Denny ChinPage3had a legitimatebasis o contend hat it was he victim of actionableconduct, and. . . thesubpoenaeddentity infonnation [must be] centrallyneeded o advance hat claim.l

It is difficult to consider he possibility that the filing of the Complaint by these espectedpartiesmight not havebeenpreceded y a meticulous nvestigation.On the other hand, t is notdifficult for the plaintiffs to presentsolid evidence, ncluding an affidavit by the ndividual whoexamined he files available or download rom eachdefendant's omputer, istened o the files,verified that they were copyrightedsongs,and checked o be sure hat thosecopyrightswereregisteredand are ownedby the plaintiffs, and o list in the affidavit or in an affidavit attachmentthe songs hat the Doe madeavailable or download.The Whiteheadaffidavit in this case s longon social policy and very short on firSt personaverments bout he ndividual defendantsn thiscase.Becausehis casewill set a standard or all plaintiffs who seek o identify anonymousInternetspeakers asedon claims of copyright nfringement, ncluding thosewho are essscrupulousand ethical han heseplaintiffs, the Court shouldnot authorizea subpoena ntil suchindividualized evidence s presented bouteachDoe.

2. Joinder. Plaintiffs haveviolated Rule 20, F R. Civ. P., by joining all 43 defendantsna single action. The SecondCircuit requires hat, for defendantso be oined in the same awsuit,they must be related o each other. In NassauCy. Ass n of Ins. Agentsv. Aetna Life & Cas.,497F.2d 1151 2d Cir. 1974), he court refused o allow a classaction against164 nsurancecompanies ccused n antitrust violations becauseherewas "no allegationof conspiracyorother concertof action." Similarly, in Pergo v. A//oc, 262 F. Supp.2d122, 127-128 S.D.N.Y.2003), he court refused o allow a plaintiff to oin in the sameaction different defendantshathad allegedlyviolated the samepatents,because there are no allegationsof any cooperativeorcollusive relationshipbetween he two setsof defendants."Another rial court in the SecondCircuit similarly refused o allow suit against104 defendantswho usedalteredconverters o stealtelevision programming rom plaintiff's cableboxes, in the absence f any claim that thedefendants onspiredor acted ointly." Te/emediaCo. v. Antidonni, 179F RD. 75, 76 (D. Conn.1998).

Our concern hat comersmight be cut if hundredsof otherwiseunrelateddefendants rejoined in a single action s heightenec1y the manner n which plaintiffs have sought eave opursuediscovery n this case.Plaintiffs' affidavit attaches undredsof pagesconcerning hemusic files madeavailableby threeof the 40 defendants nd ells the Court that althoughcomparable videncecould be madeavailablewith respect o eachof the other defendants,twould be too burdensomeo do so. However,although he courtsexist to implementbroad andimportantpublic policies, hey do so by meting out individual ustice. To be sure, t is moreconvenient o presentevidenceaboutonly a few of the accused efore obtaining discovery aboutall of them. but if it is important enough o sueall of them, t shouldbe mportant enough opresentsufficient evidence o justify discovery dentifying eachone of them.In a highly analogous ontext,severaldistrict courtshave efused o allow the DirecTV

company o suehundredsof otherwiseunrelated ndividuals for using "pirate access oxes" toobtain satellite signalswithout paying for them! Stealingsatellite signals s at leastasI The argwnent for a balancing test is more fully developed at http://www.citizen.ofg/docurnents/Melin%202. df.2 The casesare collectedat the web pagehttp://www.directvdefense.ofg/files/seecaption"Severance").Accord Movie Systems . Abel, 99 F.R.D. 129 (D. Minn. 1983) denying oinder of1,798defendantswho had allegedlyall infringed the same elevision distributor'sbroadcasts

8/14/2019 00607-20040202 SonyLetter

4/6

HOD. Denny ChinPage 4reprehensible s making music files available or download,but thesedistrict udges refused obe stampeded y claims of convenience nd need or immediateaction nto allowing alldefendantso be oined in one action'for the administrationof massustice. The sameprincipleapplied o the accused opyright nfringers n this case.

3. Personal Jurisdiction. One of the showings hat plaintiffs have ailed to make withrespect o most of the defendantss that the Court haspersonalurisdiction of eachof the 40defendants.Under he sliding scaleor "Zippo" analysis hat hasbeenadoptedby the federalcourts or Internet urisdiction, (namedafter Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, 952 F. Supp.1119 W.D. Pa. 1997, defendantswho passivelypost nformation on the Internet or others oexamineand copy are not subject o personalurisdiction basedon their Internetpostings,whiledefendantswhose nternetsitesare commercially interactive," n the sense hat they use heirsites o engagen business ransactions, re subject o being sued n any state n which asubstantial umberof business ransactions ccur. Along this continuum, he greater he degreeof commercial nteractivity, the greater he iability for suit in a foreign urisdiction. E.g., ALSScanv. Digital ServiceConsultants, 93 F.3d 707 (4thCir. 2002); NeogenCorp. v. Neo Gen&reening, 282 F.3d 883 (6thCir. 2002); Mink v. AAAA Development,190 F3d 333 (5thCir.1999). The SecondCircuit hasneverexpresslyadopted his sliding scaleanalysis,but severaldecisions n this District have adopted t.3 Moreover, n BensusanRestaurantCorp. v. King,126 F.3d 25 (2nd Cir. 1997), he court of appeals efused o find that a website that nfringed thetrademarkof a New York cafe owner constituted ortious action n New York under he statelong-armstatute.

The defendantsn this casedo not havewebsites,but their computersare alleged o befunctioning in a manner comparable to a website - they have opened a section of their personalcomputers o the Internet n a manner hat pennits other personswith personalcomputers oobtain files storedon thosecomputersand download hem without charge.Therefore,defendantscannotbe found at the "commercially nteractive" end of the sliding scale,and he mere act thatthe dataon their computers anbe accessed y othersand downloaded n New York is not asufficient basis or subjecting hem o suit here.Moreover, although he Complaint allegesand he WhiteheadAffidavit avers hat the IPnumbers hat eachof the defendantss alleged o haveused o post nfringing material can betraced o a single ISP, Cablevision,which "can be found" in New York, standard ools fortracing he InternetProtocol addresses, hich were readily available o Plaintiffs before heyfiled suit, indicate hat many of the 40 defendants o not reside n the SouthernDistrict of NewYork.4 Accordingly, on the face of the complaint, t appearshat many of the defendants re notbecause, although herewere commonpracticesand perhaps ommonquestionsof law," theindependent efendants ad not acted ointly).3 n re Ski Train Fire, 2003 WL 22909153 S.D.N.Y. 2003) ("It is well settled hat a court mustexamine he nature and quality of a defendant'sactivity on its website to detennine whetherjurisdiction is appropriate n New York."); Citigroup v. City Holding Co., 97 F.Supp.2d 549(S.D.N.Y. 2000) (endorsingZippo cOntinuumand finding personal urisdiction basedon highlyinteractive, commercial website on which NY customers ould apply for loans and chat with alending representative);K.C.P.L., Inc. v. Nash, 1998 WL 823657 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (endorsingZippo continuum and declining to find personal urisdiction over defendantwho merely owneddomain nameReaction.com).4Amici canpresent naffidavitdescribinghese tandardracing echniquesndwhat heyreveal about he probable ocation of the 40 defendants t the court's request.The plaintiffs

8/14/2019 00607-20040202 SonyLetter

5/6

Hon. Denny ChinPage 5subject o jurisdiction in New York. There s no basis or this Court to compel he ISP to identifydefendants f whom the Court doesnot havepersonalurisdiction. Accordingly, if anysubpoenas re o be issued, hey shouldonly requireCablevision o specify he states n whicheachdefendant esides,so that Plaintiffs can refile this action againstsuch ndividuals in theproper urisdictions. .

4. Procedure for Subpoenas.Even assuming hat the Court concludes hat it shouldallow someor all of the discovery equested y plaintiffs, we suggest hat the Court better ensurethat the Doeshave a realistic opportunity o object f they choose o do so. While we applaudplaintiffs for recognizing hat an ISP shouldbe allowed sufficient time to notify its subscribersthat their identifies are at issue,so that, f they choose, he Doescan offer evidenceor argumentin defense f their anonymityunder he Dendrite standard.Pl. Mem. at 7 n4. We question,however,whether ifteen days rom the dateof the subpoenas a sufficient amountof time toallow eachdefendant o receive he requisitenotice rom the ISP and o allow that defendant,particularly a defendantwho may be locatedoutsideNew York, to obtain an attorneywho islicensed o practice n this District, and o allow that attorney o preparea motion to quash f onecanbe ustified. We suggest hat the Court addresshis issue n its order,by directing the ISP toprovide notice within sevendaysof its receiptof the subpoenao eachpersonand o allow thedefendantsourteendays rom the time notice was received o file a motion to quash.

In urging suchadditional ime, we are not insensitive o plaintiffs' concernsabout heneed or immediateaction est nformation contained n the ISP's electronic ecords,showingwhich of its customers sedwhich IP numbersat which times. We suggest hat the Court requirethe ISPs o preserve hat nformation pending his Court's ruling on whether t may pursuediscovery,and, f a subpoenas served,pendingdispositionof any timely filed motion to quash.. CONCLUSIONAmici respectfully request hat the motion for expedited discovery be consideredandresolved n accordancewith the principles set orth above.

R~fu\ly submitted,/j~) ~j1V", .A;~ '-tor ftJ~.'t~J.".Paul Alan Levy (DC Bar No. 946400) Wendy Seltzer (WS-4188) ~ ~~ ~,,*.'\.CharlotteGarden Cindy CohnPublic Citizen Litigation Group 454 Shotwell Street1600- 0thStreet,N.W . SanFrancisco,CA 94110Washington,D.C. 20009 Telephone: 415) 436-9333(202) 588-1000 Facsimile: (415) 436-9993Attorneys or Public Citizen Attorneys or Electronic Frontier FoundationChristopherA. HansenAden J. FineAmerican Civil Liberties Union125Broad StreetNew York, NY 1004-2400(212) 549-2500(212) 549-2651 fax)Attorneys or American Civil Libertl--esthemselves bliquely acknowledgehat urisdiction may not be proper or all of the 40defendants.Pl. Motion, footnote4.

8/14/2019 00607-20040202 SonyLetter

6/6

HOD. Denny ChinPage 6

cc: J. Christopher ensenJasonDavid SandersCowan,Liebowitz & Latman,P.C1133Avenue of the AmericasNew York, NY 10036(212) 575-0671 fax)JonathanD. SchwartzExecutiveVice Presidentand GeneralCounselCablevisionSystemsCorp.1111StewartAvenueBethpage,NY 11714-3581(516) 803-1129 fax)